seattle.politics

"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message
news:ieydnZtZBsvD_1nanZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@...
> Brutus wrote:
>
>> "Bill Shatzer" wrote in message
>> news:wKOdnXHy5tynP17anZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@...
>
> -snip-
>
>>>More exactly, perhaps +% of the fossil record is missing.
>
>>>But such fossil record as exists fits evolutionary theory quite nicely.
>>>As do the new fossils as they are turned up.
>
>>>After all, it would require but a single mammoth tusk or some such to
>>>show up in a Precambrian or Devonian strata to throw evolutionary theory
>>>into a tailspin. Yet except for obvious intrusive burials, no such
>>>fossil has ever been discovered.
>
>>>Nor will such a fossil ever be uncovered.
>
>> When you design a theory around the evidence at hand it should fit quite
>> nicely.
>
> And evolution meets that criterion - rather more than just quite nicely.
>
>> Unfortunately there are gaps in the fossil record that a million T-Rexs
>> could walk through shoulder to shoulder and still have room for Hillary's
>> hips.
>
> A T-Rex tooth in Precambrian or Devonian strata would be quite as
> effective in raising rather serious questions about evolution as would a
> mammoth tusk in those same strata.
>
> Yet T-Rex apparently declined to walk through those particular strata. Or
> to get fossilized in any strata except the Cretaceous.
>
> Why is that, do you suppose?
>
> Peace and justice,

Because the dating for strata is totally subjective? That we have to ASSUME
the methods used are correct and accurate? That, unfortunately, there is no
absolute proof that the dating processes are right? What do you think?

Brutus